When the PS4 was announced, Sony was happy to say that it had 8GB DDR5 RAM. They then went on to say "This is what developers have been asking for." RAM is the single most limiting thing about the Xbox 360 and PS3. If they had had more RAM when they launched they would have been much more powerful systems.

Hell, the minimum RAM required for PC Minecraft is 2GB and the recommended is 4GB.

Actually, the minimum for PC edition is 256 MB of ram. My uncle has a laptop with 512 MB of ram, and I could run it. Not well, because his processor sucks. The Xbox 360 has 512 MB of ram, so if it could read java, there would be no need for the Xbox 360 edition, because it would play PC edition fine. Ram is not the limitation, the limitation is the people with 4 GB hard drives. They should put a DLC that is only available to us, the people that can store that on our 250 GB hard drives that can hold GB sized saves. I don't want infinite, just expanded to the point that it would take sunrise to sunrise to get from one border to another in mine cart.

Actually, the minimum for PC edition is 256 MB of ram. My uncle has a laptop with 512 MB of ram, and I could run it. Not well, because his processor sucks. The Xbox 360 has 512 MB of ram, so if it could read java, there would be no need for the Xbox 360 edition, because it would play PC edition fine. Ram is not the limitation, the limitation is the people with 4 GB hard drives. They should put a DLC that is only available to us, the people that can store that on our 250 GB hard drives that can hold GB sized saves. I don't want infinite, just expanded to the point that it would take sunrise to sunrise to get from one border to another in mine cart.

Actually, no. 256MB or 512MB of RAM is not even close to the minimum. You can usually get games to start even without the minimum, but there will always be issues like "Insufficient Memory" crashes or heavy lag when performing tasks like loading/unloading chunks, try making simple redstone circuits with 256MB and see how that works out for you.

2GB Minimum. 4GB Recommended. Most games don't perform memory checks because they assume (and rightfully so) that the user checked their system prior to running the game therefore they will load up even if you don't have the minimum, but you will be guaranteed to run into performance issues. The "minimum" is for Stable game play, not starting up the game.

On the Xbox 360 the 4GB hard drives may be another factor, but best believe RAM is a major issue with gaming whether on a PC or a console. RAM is the bridge between the files on the Hard Drive and the Processor. When you load files stored on a hard drive or the processor spits out new data after running a process that data gets fed into the RAM, the less RAM you have the less the computer can handle plain and simple.

Gaming requires a lot of RAM, especially 3D gaming. Minecraft is deceptive because it "looks" old-school, but it is actually pretty demanding software. Does anyone remember the Expansion Pack accessory for the Nintendo 64? That was a RAM upgrade module that boosted the NDRAM from 4MB to 8MB allowing better and smoother graphics. Many of the later games would have much less impressive graphics without the Expansion Pack, others like Majora's Mask would not play at all without it installed. Why? Because RAM matters. A lot.

House thing was joke
But I learned something with servers, seems silly me thinking they wouldn't be built as cheaply as possible for running a single game perfectly.
However what of PC game servers maybe PC battlefield servers could be used a couple in every country able at support at least 24 or so players on the more powerful PC builds able to completely over power what is needed for minecraft?
I'm sure for a small fee Dice at least would be happy to lend some unless EA won't allow them to EA seems mean to me.
Hopefully if my argument isn't working 4J is at least seeing how badly I want some servers.

House thing was joke
But I learned something with servers, seems silly me thinking they wouldn't be built as cheaply as possible for running a single game perfectly.
However what of PC game servers maybe PC battlefield servers could be used a couple in every country able at support at least 24 or so players on the more powerful PC builds able to completely over power what is needed for minecraft?
I'm sure for a small fee Dice at least would be happy to lend some unless EA won't allow them to EA seems mean to me.
Hopefully if my argument isn't working 4J is at least seeing how badly I want some servers.

First off, a Server is a Server, it doesn't matter if it is a "PC" server or an "Xbox" server. In either case the software and hardware installed on the server would be optimized for that particular game and running something else would require adjustments. Now that doesn't mean it is impossible to run something else, but there are many more issues such as whether or not Microsoft will even approve of using dedicated servers in the first place. Microsoft is very adamant about equal consideration for players so with regard to servers as I said before it is all or nothing; no compromises because with millions of people playing Minecraft on the Xbox 360 they can't have features available for only a small portion of the community. Additionally, companies don't make a habit of spending extra money when they don't have to, so the odds of EA (or anyone for that matter) having any "spare" servers is slim to none at best considering an unused server is the same as wasted money; it is much more common for companies to have too few servers adding more later if and when they run into problems supporting game traffic.

Second, if EA was in a position to reallocate servers for use in different games I am pretty sure that they would do so to support their own games long before giving up servers to run someone else's game. Business projects, like deploying servers, are centered on budgets, cost analysis, cost effectiveness, risk assessment, and Return on Investment (ROI) meaning they aim for the bare minimum required to accomplish the goal while keeping costs as low as possible; that means no "extra" or "spare" servers sitting around collecting dust and wasting money. Look up the recent incidents regarding the new SimCity (Released by EA) and how many people were unable to get into the game after launch because the servers were overloaded and crashed. Since EA is responsible for Battlefield 3 and SimCity, it is safe to assume that this would not have happened if what you were suggesting was really a simple task. If they could have just reassigned BF3 Servers they would have done so for the SimCity launch rather than end up having to give away free games because a bunch of angry customers couldn't access the SimCity servers.

if you guys want to talk about servers, then make a new topic about it. as now i think this is just a off topic bumping conversation

Although I do agree that things are drifting off topic a bit with the talk of multiplayer aspects and rentals and whatnot, Servers are very relevant to the topic of bigger maps because it is the only way that it will ever happen. The hardware limitations of the Xbox 360 prevent maps from being bigger than the current size due to performance issues.

However, if a large enough part of the processing load could be shifted onto dedicated servers then that would free up the Xbox's hardware to perform other tasks like dealing with increased map sizes. I agree we should keep the focus of the discussion on bigger maps since that is what this thread is about after all, but servers are our best (and probably only) hope for ever making that happen; the issue is actually quite relevant to the discussion. Adding servers would lighten the burden on local hardware and make it much more possible that world sizes could be increased.

Although I do agree that things are drifting off topic a bit with the talk of multiplayer aspects and rentals and whatnot, Servers are very relevant to the topic of bigger maps because it is the only way that it will ever happen. The hardware limitations of the Xbox 360 prevent maps from being bigger than the current size due to performance issues.

However, if a large enough part of the processing load could be shifted onto dedicated servers then that would free up the Xbox's hardware to perform other tasks like dealing with increased map sizes. I agree we should keep the focus of the discussion on bigger maps since that is what this thread is about after all, but servers are our best (and probably only) hope for ever making that happen; the issue is actually quite relevant to the discussion. Adding servers would lighten the burden on local hardware and make it much more possible that world sizes could be increased.

Although I do agree that things are drifting off topic a bit with the talk of multiplayer aspects and rentals and whatnot, Servers are very relevant to the topic of bigger maps because it is the only way that it will ever happen. The hardware limitations of the Xbox 360 prevent maps from being bigger than the current size due to performance issues.

However, if a large enough part of the processing load could be shifted onto dedicated servers then that would free up the Xbox's hardware to perform other tasks like dealing with increased map sizes. I agree we should keep the focus of the discussion on bigger maps since that is what this thread is about after all, but servers are our best (and probably only) hope for ever making that happen; the issue is actually quite relevant to the discussion. Adding servers would lighten the burden on local hardware and make it much more possible that world sizes could be increased.

i guss that makes sense. but im still disagreeing with bigger worlds

Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack

Do you like Minecraft? Do you like Pokemon? Click here then! ---->

Do you want Pictures to see what it's like? Click here then! ----> GameJolt

If you want information about the game but don't wanna click either links or you just want more information. then go to my profile Bio, Or send me a message.

the maps are big enough as they are. and honestly. have you ever filled a whole map with building in survival or creative. like so much stuff you cant even see the ground. i bet you guys only filled up at the most only 1/4 of a map

Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack

Do you like Minecraft? Do you like Pokemon? Click here then! ---->

Do you want Pictures to see what it's like? Click here then! ----> GameJolt

If you want information about the game but don't wanna click either links or you just want more information. then go to my profile Bio, Or send me a message.

the maps are big enough as they are. and honestly. have you ever filled a whole map with building in survival or creative. like so much stuff you cant even see the ground. i bet you guys only filled up at the most only 1/4 of a map

That's beside the point because minecraft is also about exploration.
I should be able to be on a world for more than an hour and see new landscapes I want to explore.

the maps are big enough as they are. and honestly. have you ever filled a whole map with building in survival or creative. like so much stuff you cant even see the ground. i bet you guys only filled up at the most only 1/4 of a map

so in other words your saying. no.. you haven't built all over the world meaning you dont even need bigger maps since you dont use up all the map

As a matter of fact I have filled up maps with city designs, buildings, houses, roads, etc., and it really doesn't take much to get to that point. Me and my friends filled up all the land on one of my survival maps with a city before they even added creative mode; I had to start using sand and dirt from leveling hills to fill in the lakes so I could keep building my new designs. I have read more than a couple other posts on similar threads from players who have also filled up their maps with city designs, and they were making much smaller structures than I tend to build. My "skyscraper" type buildings (10 stories or more) are about 39x39 at the base and anything less just looks awkward. Even if they were built wall-to-wall with no open ground between them that's only about 22 (22.102564103 to be exact) buildings per map.

Now even without roads between them (which would look rather stupid I might add) in my opinion 22 buildings really isn't that much for a large city design, especially considering stuff like city halls, parks, mountains, lakes, rivers, oceans, and other things can take up larger pieces of the map or limit build area. If you're suggesting that we could just get rid of roads to fill up every possible block of ground space, that's a bit ridiculous since it defeats the purpose of those kinds of designs. If we want any kind of scenery our build area is diminished further, and add to that the fact that we may not want new players spawning on top of buildings so that takes out an additional 21x21 space for a clear spawn area.

I am not angry about world size because I understand the reasons for the limitations, but I could definitely make good use of bigger maps and I would love the option to build bigger and more realistic cityscapes. Personally, I don't see how increasing map size would hurt anyone's game play experience considering it has no effect whatsoever on resource distribution or any other aspect of the game that would make life even slightly difficult for those who are happy enough with the current size. Honestly, what would be the harm? Attacking our "need" or "desire" for bigger maps simply because not everyone requesting the option has filled up an entire map is what is considered a logical fallacy distracting from the fact that you haven't provided any legitimate reasons as to why bigger maps would be a bad thing.

Red Herring:This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them.

Straw Man:This move oversimplifies an opponent's viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument.

Ad Hominem:This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments.

so in other words your saying. no.. you haven't built all over the world meaning you dont even need bigger maps since you dont use up all the map

Exploration isn't all about building there its about seeing new things that might interest you.
For example Finding a huge cliff to build an evil liar on the side of etc.
Atm you have shot down everybody else's ideas of bigger maps and not stated why it would be bad to have or what you would prefer.

As a matter of fact I have filled up maps with city designs, buildings, houses, roads, etc., and it really doesn't take much to get to that point. Me and my friends filled up all the land on one of my survival maps with a city before they even added creative mode; I had to start using sand and dirt from leveling hills to fill in the lakes so I could keep building my new designs. I have read more than a couple other posts on similar threads from players who have also filled up their maps with city designs, and they were making much smaller structures than I tend to build. My "skyscraper" type buildings (10 stories or more) are about 39x39 at the base and anything less just looks awkward. Even if they were built wall-to-wall with no open ground between them that's only about 22 (22.102564103 to be exact) buildings per map.

Exploration isn't all about building there its about seeing new things that might interest you.
For example Finding a huge cliff to build an evil liar on the side of etc.
Atm you have shot down everybody else's ideas of bigger maps and not stated why it would be bad to have or what you would prefer.

i wouldnt prefer anything as i love minecraft as it is. and the reason why i dont want bigger maps is its a waist of time. 4J can work on more important thing than just making a world bigger. the bigger the worlds the less stuff they will add in the game. i have said enough and will not continue to argue with you guys because i now find it tedious.

Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack

Do you like Minecraft? Do you like Pokemon? Click here then! ---->

Do you want Pictures to see what it's like? Click here then! ----> GameJolt

If you want information about the game but don't wanna click either links or you just want more information. then go to my profile Bio, Or send me a message.

i wouldnt prefer anything as i love minecraft as it is. and the reason why i dont want bigger maps is its a waist of time. 4J can work on more important thing than just making a world bigger. the bigger the worlds the less stuff they will add in the game. i have said enough and will not continue to argue with you guys because i now find it tedious.

lol of course someone like this would have no clue, it has to do with logical arguments and sadly it requires sooooo much effort to Google something. It is pretty amusing how someone would ask if anyone had filled a map only to then act like it is bragging when someone says yes they had (with help). Most of the paragraph is about other people doing the same thing, that and some basic math; 864x864 divided by 39x39, etc., but I suppose that too is a bit too much logic. I never considered elementary school level math and reading skills or help from friends to be bragging, but okay I suppose I can see how those might be foreign concepts to some people lol.

Exploration isn't all about building there its about seeing new things that might interest you.
For example Finding a huge cliff to build an evil liar on the side of etc.
Atm you have shot down everybody else's ideas of bigger maps and not stated why it would be bad to have or what you would prefer.

I would like bigger maps for creative reasons, but I think you also have a perfectly legitimate reason for wanting the larger maps. I think another benefit of bigger maps is that, like you said, it provides more diversity for the terrain as well as giving you some decent distance between structures. I don't usually go for the "evil lairs" but if I did I know I would want it to be in a fairly secluded area a good distance away from the spawn area and/or the center of the map. Considering the usual size of a good (lol) evil lair with walls and everything that is pretty hard to do in a 864x864 area.

u know what i see it not fit to be arguing this much. even though i may not approve of the idea, i am sorry for all the mayhem i have caused. i am aiming to be the better person and end the argument. last username has been the best of us all as he didnt agrue but simply suggested. and for the i thank you last username for not stooping to the level i was at.

Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack

Do you like Minecraft? Do you like Pokemon? Click here then! ---->

Do you want Pictures to see what it's like? Click here then! ----> GameJolt

If you want information about the game but don't wanna click either links or you just want more information. then go to my profile Bio, Or send me a message.

u know what i see it not fit to be arguing this much. even though i may not approve of the idea, i am sorry for all the mayhem i have caused. i am aiming to be the better person and end the argument. last username has been the best of us all as he didnt agrue but simply suggested. and for the i thank you last username for not stooping to the level i was at.

Agreed, things got out of hand and it takes more than one person to create a problem so I'm sorry too for the tone of my responses and throwing gas on the fire so to speak. Although I started out with the intention of defending someone's perspective I can agree that things went too far and there were much better ways to handle the situation. I think at this point we can just agree to disagree on the topic and let the argument die, thank you for taking the first step, I will follow suit.

Pros: Bigger maps provide more room to explore and/or build.

Cons: Bigger maps would require a lot of time and effort by the designers, which would detract from work on other content/updates.